Subtractive Counterfactuals Research Articles

Flexible minds make more moderate views: Subtractive counterfactuals mitigate strong views about immigrants’ trustworthiness

Public discourse on immigration has seemed to polarize over recent years—with some people strongly trusting, but others strongly distrusting immigrants. We examined whether a cognitive strategy could mitigate these biased outgroup judgments. Given that subtractive counterfactual thoughts (“If only I had not done X. . .”) facilitate cognitive flexibility and especially a relational processing style, we hypothesized that these thoughts (vs. additive counterfactuals “If only I had done X. . .” and no counterfactuals) would weaken the relationship between people’s political orientation and the perceived trustworthiness of immigrants. In five experiments (two preregistered; total N = 1,189), we found that inducing subtractive (but not additive) counterfactuals—either via rhetorical questions in a political speech or via mindset priming—had the predicted debiasing effect. Taken together, subtle means such as using subtractive counterfactual questions in political communication seem to be a promising way to reduce biased outgroup judgments in heated public debates.

The Role of Counterfactual Thinking in Narrative Persuasion: Its Impact on Patients’ Adherence to Treatment Regimen

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to explicate the underlying process of how narratives, accompanied with counterfactual thinking, exert cognitive and affective influence on audiences and (2) to examine how counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus, as story characteristics, enhance the persuasiveness of the narrative. Participants in the experiment were exposed to animated narratives in which the protagonist described her nonadherence to the peritoneal dialysis treatment regimen that resulted in her hospitalization. One hundred thirty-six patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis participated in a 2 (Goal failure framing: promotion-framed failure versus prevention-framed failure) by 2 (Counterfactual thinking: additive counterfactuals versus subtractive counterfactuals) between-subject factorial experiment. The analyses showed that narratives with additive counterfactuals, as opposed to those with subtractive counterfactuals, elicited greater anticipated regret and mental simulation, and, in turn, influenced the audience’s attitude toward and intention of adherence. More important, promotion-/prevention-framed failure and additive/subtractive counterfactuals jointly influenced the audience’s anticipated regret and mental simulation. Specifically, in the prevention-framed goal failure condition, narratives with additive counterfactuals elicited greater anticipated regret and mental simulation; however, in the promotion-framed goal failure condition, there was no significant difference on anticipated regret and mental simulation between narratives with subtractive counterfactuals and those with additive counterfactuals. The theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Microinterventions targeting regulatory focus and regulatory fit selectively reduce dysphoric and anxious mood

Depression and generalized anxiety, separately and as comorbid states, continue to represent a significant public health challenge. Current cognitive-behavioral treatments are clearly beneficial but there remains a need for continued development of complementary interventions. This manuscript presents two proof-of-concept studies, in analog samples, of “microinterventions” derived from regulatory focus and regulatory fit theories and targeting dysphoric and anxious symptoms. In Study 1, participants with varying levels of dysphoric and/or anxious mood were exposed to a brief intervention either to increase or to reduce engagement in personal goal pursuit, under the hypothesis that dysphoria indicates under-engagement of the promotion system whereas anxiety indicates over-engagement of the prevention system. In Study 2, participants with varying levels of dysphoric and/or anxious mood received brief training in counterfactual thinking, under the hypothesis that inducing individuals in a state of promotion failure to generate subtractive counterfactuals for past failures (a non-fit) will lessen their dejection/depression-related symptoms, whereas inducing individuals in a state of prevention failure to generate additive counterfactuals for past failures (a non-fit) will lessen their agitation/anxiety-related symptoms. In both studies, we observed discriminant patterns of reduction in distress consistent with the hypothesized links between dysfunctional states of the two motivational systems and dysphoric versus anxious symptoms.

Split in the Perception of Identity: A Case from Gurkhas of India

The present study is a case from Gurkhas of Dehradun in the state of Uttarakhand in India. Gurkhas, popularly known for their soldier skills, are presently going through a phase of transition and identity crisis. During the course of an extended stay in the group, a conflict in the thinking pattern of Gurkha youth and old emerged. A tendency is emerging in Gurkha youth to break out of the tag of ‘Nepali’ (citizen of Nepal) and concurrently the old are trying to preserve their identity by not mixing with ‘others’. This gave me the opportunityto investigate for the self-regulatoryfocus orientation (SRFO) (promotion/prevention type) among the Gurkhas and also the kind of counterfactuals (additive/subtractive) generated by them. Self-regulation with a promotion focus is characterised by concern for growth while prevention focus is typified by concern about maintenance of the status-quo. Counterfactuals are thoughts of what might have been, of how the past might have turned out differently. They could be either additive (addition of aspects that were not in fact present) or subtractive (subtraction of aspects that were present). Using range of methods like ethnography, observation, audiovisual aids and structured interviews it was revealed that SRFO and preference for generation of additive and subtractive counterfactuals is different among the young and old Gurkhas of rural and urban Dehradun. Having predilection for promotion and additive thinking, the Gurkha youth symbolises itself more with the notions of growth; whereas the old Gurkha having penchant for prevention and subtractive thinking stand for maintenance of their unique culture. This split in perceptions and identity among different sections of Gurkhas is a manifestation of both the ‘reflexive’ approach of Antony Giddens and importance of ‘how they view their future’ of French existentialists.

The Strategic Use of Counterfactual Communication in Politics

While counterfactual thinking has been widely investigated, we know much less about how counterfactual (“If . . . then”) statements are employed in political communication. We analysed statements made by politicians during pre-electoral televised broadcasts, to assess whether politicians employ counterfactuals in facework. Counterfactuals were coded according to their direction, controllability, and structure. Log-linear analysis revealed that upward, controllable, and additive counterfactuals were more frequent than downward, uncontrollable, and subtractive counterfactuals, respectively. A significant three-way interaction between target, direction, and controllability also emerged. While politicians more often employed upward controllable counterfactuals when speaking about targets other than themselves, they more often used downward controllable and upward uncontrollable counterfactuals when referring to themselves. These findings advance our knowledge of how counterfactuals are employed by politicians to promote their positive face and aggravate the face of adversaries.

Brief Report: Additive and Subtractive Counterfactual Reasoning of Children with High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders

The development of additive (‘If only I had done…’) and subtractive (‘If only I had not done….’) counterfactual reasoning was examined in children with High Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders (HFASD) (n = 72) and typically developing controls (n = 71), aged 6–12 years. Children were presented four stories where they could generate counterfactuals based on a given consequent (e.g., ‘you left muddy footprints in the kitchen. How could that have been prevented?’). Children with HFASD increasingly used subtractive counterfactuals as they got older, but controls showed an increase in additive counterfactuals, which may be linked to their growing adaptive and flexible skills. Children with HFASD likely develop different strategies for their counterfactual reasoning. The role of IQ and ideational fluency will be discussed.

Counterfactual structure and learning from experience in negotiations

Reflecting on the past is often a critical ingredient for successful learning. The current research investigated how counterfactual thinking, reflecting on how prior experiences might have been different, motivates effective learning from these previous experiences. Specifically, we explored how the structure of counterfactual reflection – their additive (“If only I had”) versus subtractive (“If only I had not”) nature – influences performance in dyadic-level strategic interactions. Building on the functionalist account of counterfactuals, we found across two experiments that generating additive counterfactuals about a previous negotiation produced an advantage for negotiators over their previous performance compared to subtractive counterfactuals, both in terms of obtaining value for oneself and conceiving creative agreements. Additive counterfactuals enabled negotiators to more effectively extract lessons from past experiences to improve their current negotiation performance.

Adding Versus Subtracting What Might Have Been: The Impact of Counterfactual Activation on Integrative Negotiations

We explored the relationship between counterfactual thinking and the construction of integrative negotiation agreements. Building on past research demonstrating that counterfactual mind-sets promote a structured imagination (Kray, Galinsky, & Wong, 2006), we hypothesized that priming a counterfactual mind-set would impair the construction of novel solutions to conflict at the bargaining table. To test this hypothesis, in Experiment 1 we manipulated counterfactual thinking prior to a dyadic negotiation task. We showed that dyads primed to think counterfactually prior to the negotiation were less likely to create integrative agreements. In Experiment 2 we examined whether this effect was moderated by the additive versus subtractive nature of counterfactual thoughts. By directing participants to generate upward counterfactual thoughts about a previous negotiation that specified what they might versus might not have done to improve their performance, we tested this hypothesis. Dyads that produced subtractive counterfactuals prior to negotiating were less like to create integrative agreements than dyads that produced additive counterfactuals.

Conflict of Competences, Counterfactual Thinking, and Performance

Two studies were run to explore the relations between a conflict of competences (i.e., a situation in which two competent individuals present divergent solutions to the same task), counterfactual thinking, and performance. The first study shows that individuals who imagine themselves in a situation involving a conflict of competences generate more intensive subtractive than additive counterfactual thoughts. The second study tested the impact of a conflict of competences on performance in an anagram task. A condition involving a mere conflict of competences was compared to one involving a conflict of competences with additive counterfactuals (known to improve performance) and one involving a conflict of competences with subtractive counterfactuals (known to have no such effect on performance). As predicted, the performance of participants in the condition involving a mere conflict of competences and in that involving subtractive counterfactuals was inferior to that of participants in the condition involving additive counterfactuals.

Implications of Counterfactual Structure for Creative Generation and Analytical Problem Solving

In the present research, the authors hypothesized that additive counterfactual thinking mind-sets, activated by adding new antecedent elements to reconstruct reality, promote an expansive processing style that broadens conceptual attention and facilitates performance on creative generation tasks, whereas subtractive counter-factual thinking mind-sets, activated by removing antecedent elements to reconstruct reality, promote a relational processing style that enhances tendencies to consider relationships and associations and facilitates performance on analytical problem-solving tasks. A reanalysis of a published data set suggested that the counterfactual mind-set primes previously used in the literature tend to evoke subtractive counterfactuals. Studies 1 and 2 then demonstrated that subtractive counterfactual mind-sets enhanced performance on analytical problem-solving tasks relative to additive counterfactual mind-sets, whereas Studies 3 and 4 found that additive counterfactual mind-sets enhanced performance on creative generation tasks relative to subtractive counterfactual mind-sets.

Culture and Counterfactuals

Past research, with its emphasis on affective regulatory processes, has failed to find cross-cultural differences in counterfactual thoughts. In the current study, the authors examine the tendency to generate additive counterfactuals (those that focus on the addition of new aspects that were not in fact present) and subtractive counterfactuals (those that focus on subtraction of factual aspects) among Mainland Chinese and European American university students in five life domains: schoolwork, romantic relationships, family relationships, friendships, and life in general. As in previous studies, the authors find an overall main effect, in which additive counterfactuals predominate over subtractive counterfactuals within both cultural groups. However, they also find systematic cultural differences in the likelihood of generating additive and subtractive counterfactuals in the domains of schoolwork and family. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for understanding the nature of cultural differences.

Counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus: Implications for action versus inaction and sufficiency versus necessity.

Counterfactual thinking is associated with regulatory focus in a way that explains previous empirical incongruities, such as whether additive counterfactuals (mutations of inactions) occur more or less frequently than subtractive counterfactuals (mutations of actions). In Experiment 1, regulatory focus moderated this pattern, in that additive counterfactuals were activated by promotion failure, whereas subtractive counterfactuals were activated by prevention failure. In Experiment 2, additive counterfactuals evoked a promotion focus and expressed causal sufficiency, whereas subtractive counterfactuals evoked a prevention focus and expressed causal necessity. In Experiment 3, dejection activated additive counterfactuals, whereas agitation activated subtractive counterfactuals. These findings illuminate the interconnections among counterfactual thinking, motivation, and goals.

Counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus: implications for action versus inaction and sufficiency versus necessity.

Counterfactual thinking is associated with regulatory focus in a way that explains previous empirical incongruities, such as whether additive counterfactuals (mutations of inactions) occur more or less frequently than subtractive counterfactuals (mutations of actions). In Experiment 1, regulatory focus moderated this pattern, in that additive counterfactuals were activated by promotion failure, whereas subtractive counterfactuals were activated by prevention failure. In Experiment 2, additive counterfactuals evoked a promotion focus and expressed causal sufficiency, whereas subtractive counterfactuals evoked a prevention focus and expressed causal necessity. In Experiment 3, dejection activated additive counterfactuals, whereas agitation activated subtractive counterfactuals. These findings illuminate the interconnections among counterfactual thinking, motivation, and goals.